No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Characteristics and outcomes of Clostridioides difficile infection after a change in the diagnostic testing algorithm
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 July 2023
Abstract
Background:
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for the detection of C. difficile is a highly sensitive test. Some clinical laboratories have included a 2-step testing algorithm utilizing PCR plus toxin enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) to increase specificity.
Objective:
To determine the risk factors and outcomes of C. difficile PCR-positive/toxin-positive encounters compared to PCR-positive/toxin-negative encounters.
Design:
Retrospective study.
Setting:
A Veterans’ Affairs hospital.
Methods:
A retrospective case–control study of patient encounters with a positive C. difficile test by PCR and either a toxin EIA–positive assay (ie, cases) or toxin EIA–negative assay (ie, controls). Clinically relevant exposures and risk factors were determined to assess CDI recurrence at 30 days. Available encounter stool specimens were cultured for C. difficile and were subjected to restriction endonuclease analysis (REA) strain typing.
Results:
Among 130 C. difficile PCR-positive patient encounters, 80 (61.5%) were toxin EIA negative and 50 (38.5%) were toxin EIA positive. Encounters that were toxin positive were more frequently treated (96.0%) compared to toxin-negative encounters (71.3%; P < .01). A multivariable logistic regression model revealed that toxin-negative encounters were less likely to suffer a recurrent CDI episode within 30 days (odds ratio [OR], 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05–0.83). Additionally, a higher C. difficile PCR cycle threshold predicted a lower risk of CDI recurrence at 30 days. (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68–0.98). During the study period, the REA group Y strain accounted for most toxin-negative encounters (32.5%; P = .05), whereas REA group BI strain accounted for most toxin-positive encounters (24.3%; P = .02).
Conclusions:
A testing strategy of PCR plus toxin EIA helped predict recurrent CDI.
- Type
- Original Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America
References
McDonald, LC, Killgore, GE, Thompson, A, et al. An epidemic, toxin gene–variant strain of Clostridium difficile
. N Engl J Med 2005;353:2433–2441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burnham, C-AD, Carroll, KC. Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: an ongoing conundrum for clinicians and for clinical laboratories. Clin Microbiol Rev 2016;26:604–630.Google Scholar
Johnson, S. The rise and fall and rise again of toxin testing for the diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis 2019;69:1675–1677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skinner, AM, Yu, B, Cheknis, A, Pacheco, SM, Gerding, DN, Johnson, S. Sequential introduction of a multistep testing algorithm and nucleic acid amplification testing leading to an increase in Clostridioides difficile detection and a trend toward increased strain diversity. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2020;41:1148–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, LC, Gerding, DN, Johnson, S, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for Clostridium difficile infection in adults and children: 2017 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). Clin Infect Dis 2018;66:e1–e48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, CAD, Carroll, KC. Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: an ongoing conundrum for clinicians and for clinical laboratories. Clin Microbiol Rev 2013;26:604–630.Google ScholarPubMed
Guh, AY, Mu, Y, Winston, LG, et al. Trends in US burden of Clostridioides difficile infection and outcomes. N Engl J Med 2020;382:1320–1330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guh, AY, Hatfield, KM, Winston, LG, et al. Toxin enzyme immunoassays detect Clostridioides difficile infection with greater severity and higher recurrence rates. Clin Infect Dis 2019;69:1667–1674.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polage, CR, Gyorke, CE, Kennedy, MA, et al. Overdiagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection in the molecular test era. JAMA Intern Med 2015;175:1792–1801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zar, FA, Bakkanagari, SR, Moorthi, KMLST, Davis, MB. A comparison of vancomycin and metronidazole for the treatment of Clostridium difficile—associated diarrhea, stratified by disease severity. Clin Infect Dis 2007;45:302–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clabots, CR, Johnson, S, Bettin, KM, et al. Development of a rapid and efficient restriction endonuclease analysis typing system for Clostridium difficile and correlation with other typing systems. J Clin Microbiol 1993;31:1870–1875.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kociolek, LK, Perdue, ER, Fawley, WN, Wilcox, MH, Gerding, DN, Johnson, S. Correlation between restriction endonuclease analysis and PCR ribotyping for the identification of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile clinical strains. Anaerobe 2018;54:1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manzo, CE, Merrigan, MM, Johnson, S, et al. International typing study of Clostridium difficile
. Anaerobe 2014;28:4–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerding, DN, Kelly, CP, Rahav, G, et al. Bezlotoxumab for prevention of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection in patients at increased risk for recurrence. Clin Infect Dis 2018;67:649–656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Origüen, J, Corbella, L, Orellana, MÁ, et al. Comparison of the clinical course of Clostridium difficile infection in glutamate dehydrogenase-positive toxin-negative patients diagnosed by PCR to those with a positive toxin test. Clin Microbiol Infect 2018;24:414–421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Senchyna, F, Gaur, RL, Gombar, S, Truong, CY, Schroeder, LF, Banaei, N.
Clostridium difficile PCR cycle threshold predicts free toxin. J Clin Microbiol 2017;55:2651–2660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choi, B, Wong, KK, Dunn, AN, et al. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) cycle threshold and Clostridioides difficile infection outcomes. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2021;42:1228–1234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Origüen, J, Orellana, MÁ, Fernández-Ruiz, M, et al. Toxin B PCR amplification cycle threshold adds little to clinical variables for predicting outcomes in Clostridium difficile infection: a retrospective cohort study. J Clin Microbiol 2019;57:e01125–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wieczorkiewicz, JT, Lopansri, BK, Cheknis, A, et al. Fluoroquinolone and Macrolide Exposure Predict Clostridium difficile Infection with the Highly Fluoroquinolone- and Macrolide-Resistant Epidemic C. difficile Strain BI/NAP1/027. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2015;60:418–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, JR, Johnson, S, Gerding, DN.
Clostridium difficile infection caused by the epidemic BI/NAP1/027 strain. Gastroenterology 2009;136:1913–1924.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walk, ST, et al.
Clostridium difficile ribotype does not predict severe infection. Clin Infect Dis 2012;55:1661–1668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, MM, Shanholtzer, CJ, Lee, JT, Gerding, DN. Ten years of prospective Clostridium difficile–associated disease surveillance and treatment at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center, 1982–1991. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15:371–381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emerging Infections Program. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. http://www.cdc.gov/hai/eip/index.html. Published 2017. Accessed June 30, 2023.Google Scholar